XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm   
      
   "SHOOTER586"  wrote in message...   
      
   > On Mar 2, 12:49 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"  wrote:   
      
   > > "SHOOTER586"  wrote in message...   
      
   > > > I have asked several explosives experts and they keep laughing at it.   
      
   > > Apparently you need to ask a building demolition expert, not a fireworks   
   handler.   
      
   > > > "pull it" was a lame assumption made by Alex Jones   
      
   > > "Pull" has been an industry 'jargon' term used since the days in which the   
   > > outer walls were actually pulled down by rope and eventually cables.  It is   
   > > a term that has stuck to the business of demolishing buildings like the   
   term   
   > > 'stinks' sticks to a pile of exposed fresh fecal material.   
      
   > Yep, and it still means to pull with ropes and cables. Hence we are   
   > going to pull WTC 6.   
      
   Sory Pundit... you can't "pull" steel and concrete with ropes.   
      
   > > > when he heard them referring to "pulling" WTC 6 with cables.   
      
   > > Bald-faced LIE.  The remnants of building 6 were brought to ground level   
   > > by the use of demolition teams and explosives, as were all of the remaining   
   > > portions of the WTC.   
   >   
   > Bold faced?   
      
   Either way, the lie remains a lie.   
      
   > > According to Larry Silverstein's lie, a mutual decision between himself   
   (as the   
   > > building owner), and the NYFD.... a completely absurd claim.  The building   
   would   
   > > have stood, regardless of it's condition, until permits were applied for   
   and issued,   
   > > and the proper planning and safety preparations for it's destruction were   
   made.   
   > > That is, of course, unless you're a criminal who has already made the   
   decision   
   > > well in advance of the date in question.   
      
   > How did you determine that the building would have stood?   
      
   It is a physical impossibility for every single joint in a steel skyscraper to   
   simultaneously suffer from complete and total catastrophic failure allowing   
   the building to plummet vertically with no resistance from intact steel.   
      
   > All the crews on-scene thought it was going to collapse.   
      
   Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack....   
      
   > Do you have any better insight from where you are?   
      
   About as much as you do from where you are.... meaning none.   
      
   > > > The Fire Department?   
      
   > > At best, the fire department would have been required to be on site in the   
   > > event any portion of the future demolition resulted in fires.  Otherwise,   
   the   
   > > fire department has nothing to do with building demolition outside of the   
   rare   
   > > case in which, as an emergency action, walls of roofs of smaller buildings   
   > > or homes must be physically destroyed in order to expedite fighting fires.   
      
   > Then why did he say "they" decided to "pull it"?   
      
   To avert the blame for the crime.   
      
   > Do you think he   
   > wanted them to demo his own building for him so he can claim an   
   > insurance "prize"?   
      
   No question about it.   
      
   > > > Are they in the position to demo a building these days?   
      
   > > No.  The Silverstein interview, although a botched admission, was also a   
   lie.   
      
   > So he lied and admitted a crime at the same time?   
      
   That is correct.   
      
   > Are you picking and   
   > choosing which words are true based on how it fits your little story?   
      
   I am ignoring the little quote you seem so fond of and looking at the physical   
   facts.   
      
   Besides... I thought you were changing the subject to 'squibs'.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)